What a ridiculous argument. The Apollo program was an immense political and economic commitment. "Going back" was not about science; it was about political will and popular support---which was lacking. And (to play devil's advocate) why go back? We have more surface sample material than has been examined. The current plan to return is cluttered with woke objectives (sending the first woman to the Moon, and maybe also the first black person) and visionary objectives (the search for water and helium-3). I have misgivings about the mission architecture, but that's NASA for you.
"Climate science" deserves always to be in quotation marks---but it is not travel to the Moon. It is refuted by facts, not by suspicion.
Ah, so you have misgivings about NASA. That's how it starts. You'll get there someday perhaps. Anyhow, since neither of us is putting forth anything resembling proof, this conversation is stuck. Let's just settle for I hope you're right and move on.
Part of NASA is dishonest (climate change) and the rest is honest. I disagree with their program. I've held this view for decades, based on history and industrial experience.
There's plenty of "proof." I've found that the true dis-believers simply deny it, or have no clear idea what "proof" would entail.
Ok. Lets forget about the "proof" for a moment. What about the comms? Apollo 13. 13? Really? And ending it all on a 17? Good one. And they're not even trying to hide it now. Everything outta NASA is bent around the symbolism. Climate change is simply the 666 whining about all the heat being applied to their rigged system. NASA is just the mouthpiece that pretends to do things in space. Today my phone (another mouthpiece) informed me of a house sized asteroid that's approaching closer to the earth than the moon. What's going on in The House right now? Impeachment inquiry. Meanwhile, the phone helpfully supplied a David Gilmour article directly below for context. Apparently the inquiry's not gonna go anywhere near the Dark Side of the moon where all the "NASA proofs" are buried. Oh well. Thanks for nothing NASA.
What "comms"? You are not being very coherent. Apollo 1 was a disaster. Was that a "comm"? Are you superstitious about numbers? Accidents happen. Some buildings are constructed with no floor "13" out of superstitious fear, or deference to that fear. That's a big faithlessness to God, as I see it.
So, the asteroid approaches the Earth closer than the Moon. Do you have any idea how far away the Moon is? Unfortunately, your remark about "the Dark Side of the moon" indicates you have no understanding of what the Moon even is...since there is no "Dark Side." How do you expect to understand anything about NASA when you don't know the simplest facts about the Moon or outer space?
What a ridiculous argument. The Apollo program was an immense political and economic commitment. "Going back" was not about science; it was about political will and popular support---which was lacking. And (to play devil's advocate) why go back? We have more surface sample material than has been examined. The current plan to return is cluttered with woke objectives (sending the first woman to the Moon, and maybe also the first black person) and visionary objectives (the search for water and helium-3). I have misgivings about the mission architecture, but that's NASA for you.
"Climate science" deserves always to be in quotation marks---but it is not travel to the Moon. It is refuted by facts, not by suspicion.
Ah, so you have misgivings about NASA. That's how it starts. You'll get there someday perhaps. Anyhow, since neither of us is putting forth anything resembling proof, this conversation is stuck. Let's just settle for I hope you're right and move on.
Part of NASA is dishonest (climate change) and the rest is honest. I disagree with their program. I've held this view for decades, based on history and industrial experience.
There's plenty of "proof." I've found that the true dis-believers simply deny it, or have no clear idea what "proof" would entail.
Ok. Lets forget about the "proof" for a moment. What about the comms? Apollo 13. 13? Really? And ending it all on a 17? Good one. And they're not even trying to hide it now. Everything outta NASA is bent around the symbolism. Climate change is simply the 666 whining about all the heat being applied to their rigged system. NASA is just the mouthpiece that pretends to do things in space. Today my phone (another mouthpiece) informed me of a house sized asteroid that's approaching closer to the earth than the moon. What's going on in The House right now? Impeachment inquiry. Meanwhile, the phone helpfully supplied a David Gilmour article directly below for context. Apparently the inquiry's not gonna go anywhere near the Dark Side of the moon where all the "NASA proofs" are buried. Oh well. Thanks for nothing NASA.
What "comms"? You are not being very coherent. Apollo 1 was a disaster. Was that a "comm"? Are you superstitious about numbers? Accidents happen. Some buildings are constructed with no floor "13" out of superstitious fear, or deference to that fear. That's a big faithlessness to God, as I see it.
So, the asteroid approaches the Earth closer than the Moon. Do you have any idea how far away the Moon is? Unfortunately, your remark about "the Dark Side of the moon" indicates you have no understanding of what the Moon even is...since there is no "Dark Side." How do you expect to understand anything about NASA when you don't know the simplest facts about the Moon or outer space?